The Nikka Coffey Malt Whisky has no age statement. The reviewed bottle is owned by @Maddie. The whisky was sampled when the bottle was first opened and again 3 weeks later
Nose: strong intensity malt flavours mostly expressed as cereal with just hints of grassiness. This is mostly medium-pitched with a very good sweet-dry balance. There are light pleasant well-integrated wood flavours. Is there a hint of wine influence? Maybe, but just a hint. This is basic, but good. Water added increases the sweetness, raises the pitch, and bundles the flavours. Score: 21.5 points with and without water added
Taste: crisp pointed flavours present upon delivery, reflecting pointedly all three elements of barley, oak, and perhaps wine. Quite pleasant. Water added increases sweetness. Score: 22/25 points with and without water
Finish: medium length for the grain flavours, with the death occurring on wood (and wine if there is any here). This loses some balance proceeding throughout the finish. Water added bundles the flavours throughout the finish. Score: 20/25 with and without water
Balance: very good on the nose and delivery; fair to good on the finish. Score: 21/25
Total Sequential Score: 84.5 points
.............................
Strength: very strong nose flavours; strong palatal flavours; adequate strength on the finish. Score: 22/25
Quality: good to very good grain flavours; good albeit understated wood flavours; good to very good wine flavours (maybe). Score: 21/25
Variety: very adequate variety of flavours. Score: 21/25
Harmony: very good harmony on nose and delivery; fair to good harmony on the finish. Score: 21/25
Total Non-Sequential Score: 85 points
..................
Comment: I re-tasted this whisky after 3 weeks to see if anything new developed, but found it to be little changed after that period of time. Nikka Coffey Malt is a solid product with a basic approach. I am curious to see how the flavours of this bottle may change over months and years of air exposure. I consider Nikka Coffey Malt Whisky to be a good bottle, but not a "must-have"
Comment on @huineman's review